I think what's at play is the balancing of privacy and other public interests. There is no question that this particular tool is extremely intrusive. It's more intrusive than traditional wiretap tools. It does not just record communications on the phone between person A and person B. It sits on the phone, on the digital device of the individual, and the state—the police—has access to everything on that phone. It is extremely intrusive.
When you look at the balancing, therefore, there needs to be an extremely compelling public interest to justify the state being able to have that kind of information and use these tools. The Criminal Code sets out a limited list of offences, serious offences, where the police, with judicial authorization, are able to use the technology in question—things like murder, terrorism, drug trafficking and the like.
I think by and large the list of offences in question does fit the definition of “compelling state imperatives”.